The G 120TP seems a good choice for EFTS at RAFC Cranwell, but way over the top for UAS / AEF work. Either that means the end of UASs and AEF flying, or perhaps they'll soldier on with the Plastic Pig?
But why choose an old design such as the T-6C? Wouldn't the PC-21 have been a better choice?
No doubt the shiny-suited snake oil folk at Ascent know the 'big picture' better than 92 years of CFS experience?
I note that the G 120TP has similar (if not better) performance to the Siai-Marchetti SF.260. Yet when the Chipmunk replacement programme took place, the SF.260 ('too complicated for the UAS world'), the Pitts S-2C ('we can't have a biplane') and (I think) the Zlin Z-42 ('Good grief - a communist aeroplane?') were ruled out in favour of the political Bulldog. Which served the RAF well, until the wretched Teutor appeared on the scene.
After the
Marston report destroyed the traditional UAS scheme in 2005, students only get around 10 hours of flying per annum, unless they're allocated someone else's share. But plenty of running around doing 'Force Development' bolleaux
. So I can't see them maintaining their skills on a complicated aeroplane such as the G 120TP with such little annual flying. However, if flying does stop at UASs, who in their right mind would choose a UAS over an URNU or OTC?
I'm so
glad that I joined the RAF when it could afford to do things properly - as many hours on the Chipmunk as you could get at ULAS, paid the equivalent of £14800 in my 3rd year, then £20800 in my 4th year. Summer camps at Thorney Island, Marham, Newton and Abingdon. Followed by Officer Training and flying training on a proper jet trainer at RAFC Cranwell and on to the Gnat / Hunter at Valley / Brawdy....
Things hadn't changed that much when I went back as a QFI 25 years later, but the writing was on the wall by then - so I'm glad that I wasn't there to see it all go to hell in a handcart.